This is an excellent outline of the realities of Roe v. Wade from William Sullivan at American Thinker:
Some squishier conservatives are now working hard to shy away from any suggestion that President Trump’s newest Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh, might challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.
I’m not exactly sure why anyone’s surprised that he or Justice Gorsuch might do exactly that. Trump campaigned in 2016 as a pro-life candidate and promised to appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. But now that we have an opportunity to reverse what is possibly the worst and costliest Supreme Court decision in the history of our country, we’re being admonished for the open hope that it can be done.
Take young pundit Tomi Lahren, who is, based upon her previous controversial statements, clearly an advocate of a woman’s fabricated federal “right” to kill her unborn child, which was created by judicial activism via the Roe v. Wade decision. She now argues that conservatives supporting a Supreme Court appointee who might “come after Roe v. Wade” make a “mistake,” because “we are implying that we are sending a Justice to the bench to carry out religious judicial activism.”
Impossible for her to imagine, I suppose, that someone might find Roe v. Wade constitutionally problematic based upon a desire to observe and preserve the simplest principles of constitutional conservatism. In her mind, apparently, challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade can be the result only of some dogmatic religious zealotry.
Let’s take her basic assumption and play a game.
Which Supreme Court justice made the following observation in 1985?
Roe v. Wade sparked public opposition and academic criticism, in part, I believe, because the Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.
Which conservative justice was this? Was it Clarence Thomas? Antonin Scalia? William Rehnquist? No. It was the same justice who told law students at the University of Kansas in 2005:
When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, the law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law — even the most liberal — as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way the courts generally work.
Which right-wing, religious zealot would dare challenge the constitutionally sound method of legislating a new abortion law from the bench via Roe v. Wade?
Read more: American Thinker
Image credit: Wikipedia/Joe Ravi.